Solmar witness knocks down access alternatives, to the dismay of neighbours

Since an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing over the proposed Rand Estates subdivision started almost a month ago, there has been only a handful of days where using the panhandle as an access to the development hasn’t been mentioned at some point during deliberations.  

And Wednesday’s session was another occasion where it was once again discussed.  

On the first day of the hearing, Mark Flowers, counsel for Solmar Development, said that the access location at 200 John St., is the preferred channel into the proposed subdivision, even though there could be other options.  

On Wednesday, planner Paul Lowes elaborated on three other potential accesses that were investigated and explained why Solmar witnesses continue to push for the panhandle access as their first choice.  

He said 240 John St., which is Two Sisters Vineyards, was considered but later determined not to be a viable option.  

It is within a greenbelt-protected area, and going in this direction would require a new road through the vineyard, also owned by Solmar developer Benny Marotta. Citing a number of acts and legislation, he said this option would be permitted as it relates to one condition, that the new piece of infrastructure is built as part of a project that supports agricultural recreation and tourism.  

But where Solmar is being cautious, he said, is that new infrastructure should avoid specialty crop areas and can only be part of the plan if there is no other reasonable alternative. “In my opinion, there are reasonable alternatives, and that reasonable alternative is the panhandle.” 

Lowes said choosing the vineyard as an access to the subdivision would not be good planning. 

The second potential access would be along Charlotte Street at the nearby heritage trail that runs along the rear of the Rand property. The trail is owned by the municipality and an access there “would only work if there was permission given by the town,” said Lowes.  

But that matter has already been decided after a flip-flop from town council earlier this year when it initially planned to allow the developer to use that portion of the trail, but rescinded that offer shortly after. “That option is now off the table,” he said.  

A third possible access, which Lowes is using 144-176 John St., the main part of the Rand Estate. This would impede the building of a hotel at that site, a plan previously pitched by Two Sisters Resorts, which has the same ownership as Solmar, he said.

A road would sever those two properties and the private road made unavailable to public access, said Lowes, also noting the subdivision is not planned to be a gated community.  

This option is proposed by Save Our Rand Estate (SORE), the grassroots group fighting the development, who also have party status in the hearing.  

Before cross-examination started near the end of the day, tribunal member Daniel Best asked Lowes about the panhandle access being referred to as a “driveway” by other Solmar experts and whether he has worked on other developments where a subdivision of this magnitude has been entered by a driveway.  

“I’ve always considered them as a private road,” he said, adding that often it ends in an emergency access also being required.  

Lowes said there are mature trees in that area that would likely be compromised and that this option would be “more impactful” than the panhandle access.  

In his evidence he noted that the entire development would have 19 per cent open space, which he called very substantial. “In my experiences, it’s very unusual to get to that level of open space.”

Lowes is the last of 15 expert witnesses that have been called to testify virtually in front of the tribunal hearing, which began April 9.  

Cross-examination of him is expected to continue Thursday, before former heritage planner Denise Horne, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's first witness, delivers evidence.